Unix has been around since before the cows came home, there is a lot of stuff a foot since there is no single omni-present implementation available (for a really long time). Any note worthy limitations on file names have been gone for ages but we still call it /usr instead of /user, because everyone assumes it is named /usr, even though it's a stupid way to save one letter (now're days).

By contrast, different countries have different ways of writing the date. If people agree on writing 2008-05-14, at least you don't have to check for every bloody countries format (or worse every possible one!). It limits ambiguity that otherwise has to be dealt with.

Since people don't always conform to their countries normal date/time notation, programs that allow specifing the desire format are good, ones that don't know the format but let you tell it are better.

I for one write time/dates in ISO and NATO styles, because I need to communicate with people form different countries, and I ain't taking an off by one margin error for people being late :-P

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carpetsmoker

Ok, seriously.

Who cares?
If people want to use a GUI on their server, why should we care? They use a GUI, we use a commandline, and we're all friends.
If people ask for help here, they will generally get "commandline answers", and on Ubuntu forums they will generally get "GUI answers" ... It's different, but not better or worse IMO ...

When helping people, I generally believe in giving both options (cli/gui) where appropriate, such as on PC-BSD you can generally assume some thing about the GUI tools available, same on Ubuntu, etc. Under FreeBSD, Linux, or Unix Brand Foo, that is usually harder.

One reason I never learned much about GUI way of administrating my systems: why learn 20 different ways to dick with user and groups (different guis) when you can just use tools from the command line that pertain to most OSes.

I am a firm believer that ANY THING worth doing should be doable from both the command line and a graphical interface when doing so is within reason. I.e. controlling the network settings via either method is the right thing to do but using some thing like GIMP designed for real tty's would probably be overkill.

However... From a business point of view. I don't care if it has a GUI or not, if someone is getting paid, they should know what the hell they are doing !!!

Learning to use a Linux box at the command prompt is not hard for most people that can read English. Being competent enough to manage one that'll cost a company big buck$ every second it doesn't work right is a bit tricker I'm sure.

I'm not a professional user of Linux or BSD although I know more then just my way around. If I had to hire someone, fine by me if they prefer the GUI over the CLI and can still get the job done properly. But they better know what the frig they are paid to know !

I work in a fairly big corporation on the AS/400 side. Our IT department has got a Win farm, linux cluster & unix here & there. Most of the Win & linux developers think of a server as the box beneath their monitor. And their concept of multi-user server workload is Alt-Tab.

Graphics have their place. And the place may well be on the client workstation. I just can't agree with a real server consuming processor resources for displaying graphics.

And I hate the mouse. It's such an impediment to accomplishing real work..

It's refreshing to come here and still see people that know what they are doing and that want to do things the correct way.

The biggest difference I see between Linux-centric forums (which I've been active on since '04) and BSD-centric forums (which I've been active on since '05) is the "high-skill saturation level".

Let me throw out some very rough (read: speculative) estimates to demonstrate the idea, without mentioning any specific forum names:

Average Linux forum

20% expert-level users

40% intermediate-level

40% novices

Average BSD forum

50% expert-level users

30% intermediate-level

20% novices

Why is this so? * Could it be that many BSD users start with Linux to learn a lot of concepts and then expand their horizons to the world of BSD? Could it be that the learning curve required to get a BSD installation up and working as a desktop system is more steep (thus weeding out lower-skilled, potential users)? Could it be that as a community aggressively markets and grows it will inevitably attract novices faster than it can breed experts?

* Note: I'm not stating that this definitively is so, but rather asking some questions based on my own perception of the situation.

>Could it be that the learning curve required to get a BSD installation up and working as a desktop system is more steep

-Debian
-Gentoo
-ArchLinux
-Slackware
etc.

But otherwise, there are systems like DesktopBSD and PC-BSD.

>Could it be that many BSD users start with Linux to learn a lot of concepts and then expand their horizons to the world of BSD?

In my experience it's most of the time out of frustration.

>Could it be that as a community aggressively markets and grows it will inevitably attract novices faster than it can breed experts?

Well this is a problem for really small communities like this $BSD-community, but it's no problem at all for the huge Linux community. There you'll get lot of experts and novices at the same time. No marketing at all on the other hand is fatal too.

I just started hanging out on the Ubuntu server forums and have noticed a trend I am really dissapointed in. I spent several hours last night trying to convince people on the SERVER forum why they shoud not load a GUI on their server. It was an excercise in futility to say the least. You would think since it was the SERVER forum, at least the experienced users would agree with me but that wasn't the case with most of them. I know this is a symptom of Micro$oft taking over more and more of the server market.

It's refreshing to come here and still see people that know what they are doing and that want to do things the correct way. once they port VMware to BSD, I'm outta the linux space for good. Sadly, I am seeing the dumbing down of Linux as it becomes more popular on the desktop. What do you guys think?

-Tim

Last time I used Ubuntu Server it did not come with a GUI... do they just install it? Do you have a link to that thread?

Otherwise I think it depends on what kind of server you are running... if you are running a rack in a data centre with more than millions of hits everyday, sure, running a GUI you never seen is bad...

On the other hand, my home "server" sits on a 30" monitor and is constantly running a full blown desktop environment, because I want to use it to watch movies, write documents, and surf the web too... pretty much doing the job of a desktop, while serving my home network as a NAT firewall/router in the background, having 5~6 house mates surfing YouTube/FaceBook/whatever wirelessly... I mean, it does this all fine, since the work load isn't very high, and I can have a dedicated workspace with a few xterm opened showing top, pftop, squid, and status like that, it all works very well.

Other than those case, I have seen that on BSD mailing lists that people install X just so they an run a few xterms to show status or what not... it all depends on what you are actually serving I suppose.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 18Googol2

Well, not try to be blunt but most of linux users nowadays are migrants from Windoze. They are not knowledgeable, not educated, GUI oriented and seems not to get used to the "traditional" linux environment: linux is treated with dignity.

But there are still some guys who are exceptional.

Well there is exceptional Windows users as well... but to be honest, I would rather see more "dumb" Linux users than Windows users... monopoly is just bad...

The majority of the linux community sucks ... but what are you going to do ?

Linux is being made simpler as it's growing in popularity just as .NET is .... whether this is a good thing or not is another story

Thank you for the compliment... I just switched my mother in law to Ubuntu, and I'm very glad for her it is simple. And as for the linux community: I'm very glad to help people with the most stupid questions. When I started, I also had stupid questions, and they were (almost) all answered. I've been helped and now that I'm able to answer some simple questions, I'm glad to do it. What's wrong with that?

A wise physician I know, on a Linux forum made an interesting statement after watching a thread that degenerated.

He commented on the old popular rap song, "My Milkshake"

For those unfamiliar with it, you're not necessarily missing that much, but the lyrics are,
"My milkshake brings the boys to the yard
"And they're like, 'It's better than yours,'
"D**n right, it's better than yours,
"I'd teach you but I'd have to charge."

It struck me as frightenly appropriate.
Here's a question for those of you with your anti-Linux sigs.
Ok, Linux is not Unix. (Neither are the BSDs, officially, but we're all so elite we know that's wrong. I mean after all, FreeBSD is one of the systems in O'Reilly's Essential Unix Administration--oh, wait a sec, so is RedHat--well, we're Unix anyway--no, that's U-N-I-X, NOT
E-U-N-I-C-H-S, you fools.)

Anyway, Mac OS X is an official Unix. Now, you need to hire someone to run your mail server on FreeBSD, say postfix. Your two choices are the Linux admin who's been running postfix on an RH server (not using webadmin) and a Mac OS X expert, who's worked at the genius bar in
an Apple store and knows all about Mac OS X, an official Unix.

Which do you hire?

Sorry, folks, it's a hot day, I'm not in a good mood. However, as that role model for all of us, Michael Jackson sang, "I'm starting with the man in the mirror..."

Are we talking about the UNIX trademark (aka Mac OS X) or the UNIX heritage? The latter is something about quality and reliability. So you should ask, why are you using $BSD? If you want to hire someone, well it's probably a Linux-guy, because it's a Linux-world. But if we are talking about academical coherences then it's $BSD and its qualities.

While I personally feel a GUI on a server is dead weight, there are times when it makes sense to have one. A SOHO situation where the poor sap that actually knows how to power off a computer properly is in charge of the box but he/she doesn't eat, sleep, and eat servers for breakfast but still needs a decent file or print server for example.

One thing I like about FreeBSD, I can pop in the disk, go to custom install, grab the minimal needed file sets (i.e. base, kern, what ever I want), boot it, setup and turn it into what ever I want from there.

Well I'm happy to report that some users are seeing my point. I am trying to be diplomatic and logical about the whole thing, and thankfully another *BSD user has joined me on the forum who will back me up from time to time. It's always more credible coming from more than one person.

Still I am appalled at what has happened to the general Linux community. Sunnz asked if they just install the GUI on the server. The answer is yes, they do the server install with the server distibution and then apt-get someting called ubuntu-desktop. I haven't personally used it so I don't know what it loads but it looks like a full blown GUI. If this was a desktop distro I wouldn't have been so shocked but this is Ubuntu's server edition, and they even state on their web site that not loading a GUI is for security. Looks like the more popular it gets, the worse people will abuse it.

Of course, but it's their will, you cannot avoid abuse while denying certain possibilities. If there is freedom, somebody will abuse it - but I don't think anybody would be lucky about denying freedom just to ensure the proper use of it ;-) The Linux community is a huge community, you will find even some nerds like in $BSD, you'll find anything - so there is no 'versus' there are just different people anywhere.

Actually, in that list of sticky links posted the other day, there was one excellent entry in the myths section. The myth, *BSD is better than (insert other system)

This is user opinion only.

Some people will put a GUI on a server.

When you call someone foolish, you've gone a long way towards closing their mind.

If they're inexperienced, give your reasons why you don't think it's best practice, and let it go. They can choose to listen to you or not. If you think they're foolish, well, you stated your opinion. If you come in saying, Only an idiot would put a GUI on a server, then, especially when you DON'T know what Ubuntu-desktop is, (nor do I--for all we know, it's a minimalistic GUI for certain possibly appropriate uses--probably not, but the important point here is that you're saying, "I don't know what it is, but it must be wrong."

It's possible, for example, that it's a home server for family files, that will double as a desktop and they need some sort of awkward hybrid. Just for example.

Judging from your posts here, however, I'm sure that you are giving intelligent, diplomatic arguments. Without looking at the thread, if I say, "You're doing it wrong," I'm doing exactly what I say not to do with the Ubuntu desktop thingie.

By the way, I went and looked at that thread of Windependence's, figuring I'd add support if necessary. He's doing fine.

As I suspected (from Tim's posts here) he was polite and is making his points well.
It's not a flame war. Actually, even those disagreeing aren't disagreeing with vehemence.

Thanks, I was about to post the thread when you posted this. I didn't want you guys to think I was being a zealot or something. I actually have 10 thank yous over there and I am genuinely trying to help folks just like folks have helped me here and other places.

Over here, I was not saying they were stupid or anything like that, just making an observation that from the last time I was on a Linux only board, I noticed a marked difference in the attitude, and it kinda reminded me of Windoze admins I know, and I was just a little shocked, that's all.

I was soooooo tempted to post something like nano???? What a wimp. Real men use ex. (Not that I do, but....)

However, fortunately, I'm at work and don't have time to play. It was a letdown though--I went to look at it early this morning thinking, "Dey better not mess wit' my maaain man Tim," (best Ali G voice for the preceding) and you had no need for help or support.

One thing I should say for those forums--in general, most disagreements are respectful of the other side's view. Considering the volume of those forums, it's impressive and their moderators deserve compliments. (As do ours here, of course.)

The real question is 10 years later, who has a computer problem and shouts "JUST F'ING WORK" and who sits down and tries to figure out WHY it doesn't work and HOW to fix it.

I respect effort almost as much as competence.

Let's be realistic. In everything, the majority of people don't care to learn. There is a small group who are proficient and those trying to learn, and those who can't be bothered and 'just want it to work'.

When you go to the furniture store, do you care how a dovetail joint is created, or do you just want a table? There are many fine woodworkers who could carve a dovetail in their sleep with hand tools, but most people just want the table and want to not to break.

How many people can work on their car? They don't care! They just want to push the gas pedal and have the car move. If the car breaks down, they don't care why, they just want it fixed - NOW!! They don't want the mechanic to explain the innards of the valve train or tell them how to fix it, they just want it fixed. Even those who might have some inkling that they can fix it themselves (hey, I'll save me some money) just want a quick tutorial on how to fix it and don't want to know the fundamentals of automotive engineering. And they will call with the most inane questions and just want a quick answer (and I have heard some whoopers as a mechanic and parts clerk).

So yes, I think the majority of those who use computers (machine-independent) just want the stupid contraption to work without knowing or caring how or why.

__________________
And the WORD was made flesh, and dwelt among us. (John 1:14)